Texas Gun Rights

Talarico Hired ‘Cocks Not Glocks’ Activist To Help Write Gun Control Bills

TXGR Staff — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 20:17:56 +0000

Texas Gun Rights already warned that James Talarico is no moderate on the Second Amendment.

But a new report from the New York Post pulls back the curtain even further.

According to the report, Talarico hired Ana Lopez — a former leader of the University of Texas “Cocks Not Glocks” protest movement — as a legislative aide in 2019 to help craft gun control legislation.

Talarico did not merely draft anti-gun legislation and cast anti-gun votes in Austin.

He brought an anti-campus-carry activist into his taxpayer-funded office to help build his gun confiscation agenda.

Personnel Is Policy

The “Cocks Not Glocks” movement became infamous at the University of Texas at Austin for handing out thousands of sex toys on campus to protest Texas’ campus carry law, which allows licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms at public colleges and universities.

The stunt was designed to mock lawful self-defense on campus and ridicule the very idea that licensed gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves.

Lopez was tied directly to that movement.

Then she went to work for James Talarico.

When a politician hires a committed anti-campus-carry activist to help write firearm restrictions, gun owners should take notice.

From Campus Stunt to Capitol Gun Control

According to the New York Post, Lopez helped Talarico craft three firearm restriction bills during his first year in the Texas Legislature.

All three failed, but the bills revealed the mindset behind Talarico’s operation.

Lopez’s listed work reportedly included proposals to end Texas concealed-carry reciprocity, require background checks for firearm rentals at sport shooting ranges, and make it harder to get a concealed carry license.

This is how the radical Left tries to chip away at the Second Amendment.

They rarely start by saying they want to take your guns. Instead, they call it “common sense,” “gun safety,” or “reform” while working to make it harder, riskier, and more expensive for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Talarico’s Moderate Act Keeps Falling Apart

Texas Gun Rights previously reported that James Talarico opposed efforts to pass Constitutional Carry, and backed radical legislation like red flag-style gun confiscation schemes, bans on commonly owned firearms, gun owner registration schemes, storage mandates, and other restrictions on law-abiding Texans.

Now this New York Post report reveals who Talarico trusted to help shape his gun policy from the beginning.

He was not simply another Democrat casting anti-gun votes in Austin. He hired someone tied to one of the most juvenile anti-gun protest movements in Texas history and put her to work helping draft gun control bills.

That destroys the carefully polished image Talarico is trying to sell.

He wants Texans to believe he is a reasonable, faith-talking moderate who respects the Second Amendment. But when it came time to build his gun policy operation, he brought in a “Cocks Not Glocks” activist.

The Gun Confiscation Lobby Knows What It Is Doing

The gun confiscation lobby learned from Beto O’Rourke.

They know Texas voters are not going to reward a candidate who openly says, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.”

So now they use softer words, hide behind “public safety,” talk about “reasonable reforms,” and claim they are not interested in taking anyone’s guns while pushing the same old gun confiscation agenda behind the scenes.

Universal gun registration schemes disguised as background checks.

Red flag-style gun confiscation orders without due process.

Bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms.

Magazine bans.

Restrictions on lawful carry.

Licensing traps.

Attacks on shooting ranges, private transfers, and the everyday exercise of the Second Amendment.

Texas Gun Owners Deserve the Truth

“This is not just another vote on Talarico’s record. It shows severe lack in judgement in someone he trusted to build his gun confiscation agenda,” said Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights.

Texas Gun Rights already warned that replacing John Cornyn with James Talarico would not be a Second Amendment victory.

It would mean trading a Republican who caved to the gun confiscation lobby for a Democrat who openly carries their agenda.

Gun owners fired Cornyn because they refused to forget his betrayals.

Now Talarico’s record must follow him everywhere, too.

The gun confiscation lobby is not giving up on Texas. If they can send James Talarico to Washington, they will have a reliable vote for their national gun ban agenda.

Texas cannot let that happen.

Texas Gun Rights will keep exposing the gun grabbers, mobilizing pro-gun Texans, and holding anti-gun politicians accountable — without compromise.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights expose James Talarico and the gun confiscation lobby before November.

Texas Democrats Try Rebranding Failed Gun Ban Agenda

TXGR Staff — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 20:17:40 +0000

Texas Democrats just showed gun owners the next phase of their plan to flip Texas.

The money is already flowing from George Soros & coastal elites.

The target races have already been identified by state & national Democrat interests.

Now, they are trying to sell the same radical agenda with a softer label.

At their state convention in Corpus Christi, Texas Democrats left confident, organized, and openly focused on breaking Republicans’ three-decade hold on statewide offices.

And while party leaders tried to dress it all up as “kitchen table” politics, gun owners should not be fooled.

The Left’s new message is simple: stop talking about the radical agenda, and start pretending this election is only about affordability, schools, health care, and corruption.

They even claimed the “culture wars are tired.”

But the gun confiscation agenda is not tired. It is still sitting right there in their candidates’ records:

Red flag-style gun confiscation.

Gun owner registration schemes.

Bans on commonly owned rifles.

Magazine restrictions.

Mandatory storage laws.

Attacks on Constitutional Carry.

Restrictions on lawful carry.

And every other scheme the gun confiscation lobby can use to make the Second Amendment harder to exercise.

Bernie Sanders Was the Tell

A party trying to look moderate does not close its convention with Bernie Sanders by accident.

Sanders urged Texas Democrats to embrace a bold left-wing agenda, giving their activist base exactly what it wanted to hear.

That tells gun owners what all the “kitchen table” talk is really about.

Texas Democrats know Beto O’Rourke’s “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” moment became a political disaster. So now they are trying a different approach.

They soften the language, avoid the scary details, talk about “common sense” and “public safety.”

But behind the rebrand is the same old gun ban agenda Texans have rejected for years.

Talarico and the Democrat Slate Cannot Hide Their Records

James Talarico is the face of this statewide push.

He can talk about faith, civility, and kitchen-table issues all he wants, but his record is already clear.

Talarico opposed Constitutional Carry, backed red flag-style gun confiscation schemes, supported gun owner registration policies, and pushed restrictions on law-abiding Texans.

He is not an exception in today’s Texas Democratic Party.

He is the model.

The same party cheering Talarico in Corpus Christi is trying to elect anti-gun Democrats up and down the ballot — from statewide races to the Texas House.

That is why gun owners cannot afford to sit back and assume Texas is safe.

The Left believes Texas can be flipped.

They are raising money like it.

They are training volunteers like it.

They are building the machine like it.

And now they are trying to hide their gun ban agenda behind a new campaign message.

TXGR Will Expose the Record Behind the Rebrand

Texas Gun Rights is not going to let anti-gun Democrats rebrand their way into power.

“The Texas Democratic Convention made one thing clear: the Left believes Texas can be flipped, and they are building the machine to do it,” said Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights.

“They can call it ‘kitchen table’ politics all they want, but the candidates they are pushing support the same red flag laws, gun registration schemes, AR-15 bans, and attacks on Constitutional Carry that gun owners have rejected for years. Texas Gun Rights is going to make sure voters see the record behind the rebrand.”

Gun owners fired John Cornyn because they refused to forget his betrayals.

Now they must make sure James Talarico and the entire anti-gun Democrat slate cannot hide theirs.

Texas Gun Rights will keep exposing the gun grabbers, mobilizing pro-gun Texans, and making sure voters know exactly who is trying to turn Texas into the next front for the gun confiscation lobby.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights expose the gun ban agenda before November.

Seventh Circuit Upholds AR-15 Ban as Supreme Court Prepares To Take up the Fight

TXGR Staff — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 20:17:27 +0000

A divided federal appeals court just upheld Illinois’ ban on AR-15s, standard magazines, and other commonly owned firearms — giving the Supreme Court yet another reason to step in and settle the issue once and for all.

The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Barnett v. Raoul, where gun owners challenged Illinois’ so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act.

A federal district court had already ruled the ban unconstitutional.

But the Seventh Circuit reversed that decision in a 2-1 ruling, relying on its earlier anti-gun reasoning in Bevis v. City of Naperville.

The court’s theory is dangerous: because AR-15s supposedly resemble military firearms, politicians may ban them from civilian hands.

That argument should alarm every gun owner in America.

The AR-15 is not some rare battlefield weapon. It is the best-selling rifle in the country, owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, training, sport, competition, and other lawful purposes.

That places it squarely within the “common use” protection recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller.

If courts can allow politicians to ban the most popular rifle in America, then no commonly owned firearm is safe.

The Supreme Court Is Already Taking Up the Fight

The timing could not be more important.

Just days before the Seventh Circuit handed down its decision, the Supreme Court agreed to hear major challenges to so-called “Assault Weapons” bans in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

Those cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.

That means the Supreme Court is now positioned to answer the question anti-gun politicians and hostile lower courts have been dodging for years:

Can the government ban rifles owned by millions of law-abiding Americans?

The answer must be no.

The Second Amendment does not protect only the arms politicians find harmless, outdated, or politically convenient. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And that right means very little if the government can outlaw the firearms Americans overwhelmingly choose to own.

TXGRF Is Taking the Fight to the Supreme Court

Gun owners in Texas should not make the mistake of thinking this is only an Illinois problem.

The gun confiscation lobby wants this model everywhere.

And if the Supreme Court gets this wrong, anti-gun politicians from California to New York will treat it as a green light to ban more firearms, restrict more magazines, and push their gun confiscation agenda further than ever before.

But if the Court gets it right, it could deal a devastating blow to one of the gun-ban lobby’s favorite schemes.

That is why the Texas Gun Rights Foundation is already drafting an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down these unconstitutional bans once and for all.

The anti-gun lobby will flood the Court with briefs claiming Americans cannot be trusted to own commonly used rifles.

The Supreme Court deserves to hear from Texans who understand that constitutional rights do not disappear because politicians invent scary names for commonly owned firearms.

“This is the moment gun owners have been waiting for,” said Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights Foundation.

“But getting our brief filed takes resources, and we need gun owners to help us finish the job.”

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights Foundation complete and file its Supreme Court amicus brief in the fight against AR-15 bans.

Brady Sues To Force ATF To Hand Over Gun Dealer Target List

TXGR Staff — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 20:17:10 +0000

The gun confiscation lobby wants a list.

Not a list of violent criminals.

A list of lawful gun dealers.

Brady has filed a federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice demanding records tied to ATF’s “Demand Letter 2” program — records that could identify firearm dealers and pawnbrokers based on trace data that does not prove they did anything wrong.

Brady claims this is about “transparency.” But gun owners have seen this game before.

First, the gun-ban lobby demands the names.

Then come the media attacks, political pressure campaigns, bank blacklists, insurance problems, local harassment, regulatory fishing expeditions, and calls for the government to crack down on lawful firearm businesses.

This is not about stopping violent criminals.

It is about using ATF records to build a target list.

Brady Wants ATF to Name the Dealers

According to Brady’s complaint, the group filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking all Demand Letter 2 notices issued by ATF to federal firearms licensees in fiscal years 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2025.

ATF sends these letters to certain licensed dealers and pawnbrokers after a threshold number of firearms sold by that business are later recovered by law enforcement in connection with crimes within three years of sale.

Brady wants those letters released.

And Brady’s own filing makes clear the goal is not merely to study a government program in the abstract. The group says disclosure of the volume of dealers receiving these letters — and the identities of those businesses over time — would help evaluate ATF’s policies.

In plain English, Brady wants names.

The ATF withheld the records in full, citing FOIA exemptions related to commercial information and privacy interests. Brady appealed, DOJ failed to issue a timely substantive response, and now Brady is asking a federal court to force production.

That is the legal posture.

But the political objective is much easier to understand.

The gun confiscation lobby wants ATF to hand over information it can use against firearm retailers.

A Trace Is Not Proof of Wrongdoing

A gun can be legally sold by a licensed dealer, later resold, stolen, trafficked, transferred, or misused by a criminal long after the original sale.

That does not mean the dealer committed a crime, acted negligently, or knowingly armed a criminal.

But the gun confiscation lobby has spent years trying to blur those lines because trace data gives them a weapon they can use against the firearms industry.

They do not need to prove a dealer did anything wrong if they can splash the name across a report, hand it to friendly media outlets, and pressure politicians to “do something.”

“Brady is not suing to stop violent criminals. They are trying to force ATF to help them build a target list of lawful firearm dealers,” said Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights Foundation.

“A firearm trace is not proof of wrongdoing, and the gun confiscation lobby knows it. But if they can turn sensitive ATF records into a public blacklist, they can use the media, banks, insurers, regulators, and local officials to squeeze the firearms industry without ever passing a gun ban.”

That is why this lawsuit should concern every gun owner who understands how the anti-gun machine operates.

They rarely stop with the person who actually commits the crime. They blame the gun, the dealer, and the manufacturer.

Then they use that blame to demand more federal power.

ATF Should Not Become Brady’s Opposition-Research Department

The ATF already has more than enough power to harass, inspect, threaten, and shut down gun dealers.

Under Joe Biden, the agency’s “zero tolerance” policy turned paperwork errors into a weapon against FFLs, driving lawful dealers out of business while violent criminals continued to walk free.

Now Brady wants to use litigation to force more information out of the same federal agency and put it to work for the gun-ban lobby’s political campaign against firearm retailers.

That should alarm gun owners.

ATF is supposed to be a federal law enforcement agency, not an opposition-research department for Brady, Everytown, Giffords, or any other anti-gun group trying to destroy the Second Amendment.

Congress has long recognized that firearm trace information is sensitive. Releasing it can mislead the public, compromise investigations, and turn raw law enforcement data into ammunition for political attacks.

This Is the Backdoor War on the Second Amendment

The gun confiscation lobby understands it cannot always ban guns outright, especially in states like Texas where gun owners remain politically powerful.

So it attacks the infrastructure that makes the Second Amendment practical in real life.

Gun dealers. Manufacturers. Shooting ranges. Training companies. Banks that serve the firearms industry. Insurance companies willing to cover lawful businesses. Payment processors that refuse to discriminate against gun owners.

The strategy is simple: if they cannot repeal the Second Amendment, they will try to make it impossible to exercise.

The same crowd that claims to support “reasonable gun safety” is trying to pressure ATF into handing over records that could be used to smear lawful businesses based on trace data that does not prove wrongdoing.

This is lawfare.

And it is aimed directly at the firearms industry gun owners depend on.

Texas Gun Rights Foundation Is Watching

This fight is not just about paperwork.

It is another front in the gun confiscation lobby’s war against the right to keep and bear arms.

The same gun-ban lobby that wants to outlaw commonly owned rifles, impose gun owner registration schemes, and pass red flag-style gun confiscation laws also wants to choke off the lawful businesses that serve gun owners every day.

Texas Gun Rights Foundation will continue monitoring this lawsuit, exposing the gun confiscation lobby’s legal strategy, and defending the Second Amendment — without compromise.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights Foundation fight back against the gun confiscation lobby’s lawfare campaign against gun owners and the firearms industry.

Soros Machine Funnels Millions Into Texas To Back Anti-Gun Democrat Slate

TXGR Staff — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:58:27 +0000

George Soros and his political machine are pouring millions into Texas to help flip the state blue — and gun owners should pay attention.

According to campaign finance reports, George Soros has already given $1,000,000 directly to Texas Majority PAC this election cycle — on top of his AB PAC contributions, which poured in another $7,570,000.

That means Soros and his political operation have already pumped $8,570,000 into Texas Majority PAC this cycle alone — already outpacing the $8,625,000 Soros and his interests spent in Texas during the entire 2024 cycle, which was also a presidential year.

And the 2026 cycle is nowhere near over.

Soros is not backing down.

He is doubling down.

Because the radical Left believes Texas is in play.

SOROS MONEY IS BACKING A GUN-GRABBING SLATE

Texas Majority PAC exists for one reason: to help Democrats flip Texas blue.

And the statewide Democrat slate they are trying to boost is the most radical anti-gun slates Texas voters have ever seen.

James Talarico, the Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate, supports expanded gun owner registration schemes, mandatory firearm storage laws, and banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

Gina Hinojosa, the Democrat nominee for Governor, has pushed expanded gun owner registration schemes, so-called “red flag” gun confiscation laws, and raising the purchase age on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.

Vikki Goodwin, the Democrat nominee for Lieutenant Governor, authored expanded gun owner registration legislation, filed red flag gun confiscation legislation, and even tried to preserve local authority to impose red flag gun confiscation orders in Texas.

Nathan Johnson, the Democrat nominee for Attorney General, has openly supported red flag gun confiscation laws, expanded gun owner registration schemes, waiting periods, raising the purchase age on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, and bringing back government permission slips and training mandates for handgun carry.

Sarah Eckhardt, the Democrat nominee for Comptroller, authored legislation to impose expanded gun owner registration schemes on private firearm transfers.

Jon Rosenthal, the Democrat nominee for Railroad Commissioner, voted with the gun-ban bloc against Texas’ Anti-Red Flag Act.

And Clayton Tucker, the Democrat nominee for Agriculture Commissioner, is a known Bernie Sanders supporter running on the same Soros-backed statewide Democrat ticket working to flip Texas blue.

And in each of these races, the Republican nominee has returned a Texas Gun Rights candidate survey 100% pro-gun, pledging to fight for your gun rights without compromise and kick the gun confiscation agenda to the curb.

There has never been a clearer contrast on the ballot.

THE NATIONAL MACHINE

Every election cycle, politicians say, “This is the most important election of our lifetime.”

With Soros money pouring into Texas, Texas Majority PAC working to flip the state, and one of the most radical slates of gun-grabbing Democrats in modern Texas history on the ballot, 2026 may truly be the most consequential election in Texas history for the Second Amendment.

But the Texas money is only one piece of a much larger operation.

Nationally, Soros, his son Alex Soros, and their political interests have reportedly poured nearly $103 million into the 2026 election cycle so far.

The gun confiscation lobby knows gun owners will not willingly surrender their freedoms.

So they work around them.

They fund candidates who talk like moderates during campaign season, then vote with the gun-ban radicals once elected.

They target judgeships so anti-gun activists can find friendly courts.

They pour money into local races because local offices help build the bench for higher office.

They use billionaire-funded PACs to create the illusion of grassroots momentum.

Then they try to use every lever of government to punish the law-abiding while criminals keep walking.

TEXAS IS THE FIREWALL

If Soros, Texas Majority PAC, and the gun confiscation lobby can flip Texas, every gun owner in America will feel it.

“Soros and his allies are not investing millions in Texas because they think this is a lost cause. They are doing it because they believe Texas can be flipped,” said Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt.

“That is why Texas Gun Rights cannot sit back while billionaire radicals try to buy our state, elect anti-gun politicians, and drag Texas into the gun confiscation agenda.”

That’s why Texas Gun Rights is fighting back by exposing anti-gun records, putting steel into the spines of weak Republicans, and ensuring gun owners know who supports them and who sells them out.

Because Soros and the gun confiscation lobby are not backing down.

Neither can Texas gun owners.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights keep fighting to defend and restore the Second Amendment — without compromise.

TXGR Helped Stop Biden’s Backdoor Gun Registration Rule

TXGR Staff — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:58:03 +0000

The Biden-era ATF rule targeting private firearm sales was officially vacated last month — and Texas Gun Rights helped make it happen.

On June 12, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated 2024 ATF “Engaged in the Business” rule — a Biden administration scheme designed to blur the line between ordinary Americans selling personal firearms and federally licensed gun dealers.

In plain English, the Biden ATF tried to create a de facto backdoor universal gun registration scheme by forcing more private individuals to register as Federal Firearms Licensees just to engage in private firearm transactions.

More FFLs means more federal paperwork.

More federal records.

More ATF oversight.

And more private gun sales dragged into Washington’s gun control machine.

But the court rejected it.

In its final judgment, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, and vacated the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.

That means ATF may not enforce the rule against anyone.

THE BIDEN ATF TRIED TO DO WHAT CONGRESS WOULD NOT

Anti-gun politicians have wanted expanded gun owner registration for decades.

But because they could not get Congress to pass their full wish list, the Biden administration tried to do it through ATF rulemaking.

That is how the modern gun control machine operates:

Lose in Congress.

Run to the bureaucracy.

Rewrite the rules.

Then dare gun owners to spend years and millions of dollars fighting back in court.

The “Engaged in the Business” rule was never just about “dealers.”

It was about federal control over private gun owners.

TEXAS GUN RIGHTS PRESSED THE EXACT ISSUE THE COURT EMBRACED

Texas Gun Rights did not sit on the sidelines.

Texas Gun Rights joined the National Association for Gun Rights in filing an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit supporting the plaintiffs in Texas v. ATF.

Our brief focused on a critical issue: when a federal agency unlawfully exceeds its authority, courts should not leave millions of Americans trapped under the same illegal rule simply because they were not personally named in the lawsuit.

ATF wanted a nationwide rule.

But when a court blocked it, ATF suddenly argued for narrow relief.

Texas Gun Rights and NAGR pushed back, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes courts to set aside unlawful agency action — and that an unlawful rule should not continue to bind gun owners nationwide.

The court’s final judgment embraced that same broad-relief principle.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk vacated the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and made clear that APA vacatur is “not party-restricted.”

In plain English, ATF may not apply the rule to anyone — including individuals and organizations who were not parties to the case.

That is the exact kind of relief Texas Gun Rights argued was necessary.

Because constitutional rights should not depend on whether your name appears in the caption of a lawsuit.

HELP FUND THE NEXT FIGHT

This ruling is bigger than one ATF rule.

It is a warning to the gun control bureaucracy.

Federal agencies do not get to rewrite the law just because anti-gun politicians cannot get their agenda through Congress.

They do not get to turn private gun owners into federal licensees by bureaucratic decree.

And when they exceed their authority, courts have the power to set those unlawful rules aside.

That is why lawsuits matter.

That is why amicus briefs matter.

Because the scope of relief can determine whether a victory protects a handful of plaintiffs or millions of gun owners.

The Biden ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” rule has now been vacated.

But the fight against federal gun control is far from over.

And Texas Gun Rights Foundation cannot take them on without the support of grassroots gun owners like you.

Your tax-deductible contribution helps fund legal research, amicus briefs, constitutional education, and courtroom efforts to defend the Second Amendment from government overreach.

Please make your most generous tax-deductible contribution today to help Texas Gun Rights Foundation keep fighting for gun owners in court.

National Democrats Target Texas House To Push Gun Ban Agenda

TXGR Staff — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:57:42 +0000

Out-of-state Democrats are joining the Soros-backed push to flip Texas blue.

And now they are targeting the Texas House.

According to The Texas Tribune, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is targeting 12 Republican-held Texas House districts in 2026, while also defending three Democrat-held seats.

If Democrats flipped all 12 GOP-held districts and held their current seats, Republicans would be left with only a razor-thin 76-74 majority in the Texas House.

That should alarm every gun owner in Texas.

Because the Texas House is where the next major Second Amendment fights will be won or lost.

THE TARGET LIST

The Republican-held districts national Democrats are targeting include:

HD 34 — Denise Villalobos, Corpus Christi
HD 37 — Janie Lopez, San Benito
HD 52 — Caroline Harris Davila, Round Rock
HD 61 — Keresa Richardson, North Texas
HD 67 — Jeff Leach, Plano/Allen area
HD 94 — Tony Tinderholt, Arlington area
HD 108 — Morgan Meyer, University Park/Dallas area
HD 112 — Angie Chen Button, Garland/Richardson area
HD 118 — John Lujan, San Antonio area
HD 121 — Marc LaHood, San Antonio area
HD 133 — Mano DeAyala, Houston area
HD 138 — Lacey Hull, Houston area

North Texas.

South Texas.

San Antonio.

Houston.

The suburbs.

The border.

This is not a random list.

It is a battlefield map.

THE TEXAS HOUSE IS THE PRIZE

If gun owners maintain control of the Texas Legislature, Texas Gun Rights will be fighting to pass Kyle’s Law, advance the Second Amendment Preservation Act, abolish taxes on guns, ammunition, and accessories, and end “gun-free” sitting duck zones.

That is the pro-gun agenda on the table.

But if Democrats chip away at Republican majorities, weak Republicans may get scared.

They may duck hard votes.

They may water down good bills.

They may bury pro-gun legislation and tell gun owners to “wait until next session.”

And if Democrats flip the Texas House, the fight changes overnight.

Instead of advancing pro-gun legislation, Texas gun owners could be forced to fight attempts to gut Constitutional Carry, pass “red flag” gun confiscation laws, impose expanded gun owner registration schemes, and ban commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and even handguns.

That is the real threat.

Control of the Texas House could decide whether Texas goes on offense for the Second Amendment — or spends the next session fighting to stop the radical Left from turning Texas into California.

THE MONEY MACHINE IS MOVING

This target list comes as George Soros and his political operation are already pouring millions into Texas Majority PAC to help flip Texas blue.

Now the DLCC is adding national Democrat muscle to the fight.

According to The Texas Tribune, targeted candidates can expect fundraising help, data, research, polling, paid communications, and voter-contact support.

In plain English, the Left is building campaign infrastructure in Texas.

They want the U.S. Senate seat.

They want statewide offices.

They want district judge races.

They want local offices.

And now they are openly targeting the Texas House for the first time since 2020.

WHY GUN OWNERS CANNOT SIT OUT

Nearly every statewide Democrat nominee has supported the same radical gun-ban agenda pushed by James Talarico and the gun confiscation lobby.

Expanded gun owner registration schemes.

“Red flag” gun confiscation.

Attacks on Constitutional Carry.

Raising the purchase age on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.

Bans on commonly owned firearms.

That is the agenda the Left wants to bring to Texas.

And if national Democrats can shrink or flip the House majority, they will have more votes, more leverage, and more momentum to push it.

“They are targeting the Texas House because they know that is where the next Second Amendment fights will be won or lost,” said Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt.

“If gun owners stay engaged, Texas can go on offense. If we get complacent, the gun confiscation lobby will turn these House districts into beachheads for their agenda.”

Out-of-state Democrats are not backing down.

The Soros machine is not backing down.

The gun confiscation lobby is not backing down.

Neither can Texas gun owners.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights keep fighting to defend and restore the Second Amendment — without compromise.

DOJ Hides Gun-Rights Restoration Rules While Ordinary Americans Wait

TXGR Staff — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:57:31 +0000

The Department of Justice says it wants to restore Second Amendment rights.

But now the DOJ is hiding records that could show ordinary Americans how that process actually works.

According to Ammoland, the DOJ is refusing to release records tied to how certain individuals were selected for federal firearm-rights restoration, citing privacy concerns under federal open-records law.

That should alarm every gun owner who believes rights restoration should be based on clear standards — not insider access, celebrity status, or bureaucratic guesswork.

The issue is not whether peaceable Americans should get their rights back.

They should.

The issue is whether the federal government gets to hand-pick winners while everyone else is told to wait in line and trust the bureaucracy.

DOJ RESTORES RIGHTS FOR SOME, HIDES THE RULES FROM EVERYONE ELSE

The DOJ has already granted federal firearm-rights restoration to a small group of individuals, including actor Mel Gibson.

At the same time, the DOJ says it is still developing a broader web-based application process for everyone else seeking to restore their federal firearm rights.

In plain English, a few people have already received relief.

Everyone else is still waiting for the rules.

And when records were requested to find out what criteria DOJ used, DOJ reportedly withheld them.

What evidence did the government rely on?

What factors mattered?

What made those individuals eligible?

How can a regular citizen with no celebrity name, no insider connections, and no political pull know whether he qualifies?

Rights restoration cannot become another federal insider game.

TEXAS GUN RIGHTS IS FIGHTING FOR CLEAR STANDARDS

This fight is not limited to Washington, D.C.

Texas Gun Rights is already fighting in the Texas Legislature to restore gun rights for nonviolent felons who have completed their sentences and paid their debt to society.

In 2025, Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt testified in support of HB 2759 by Rep. Wes Virdell, legislation backed by Texas Gun Rights and Gun Owners of America to restore firearm rights for nonviolent felons in Texas.

The bill would have amended Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 to stop treating all felonies the same for firearm-possession purposes.

It kept restrictions in place for violent felons and serious public-safety offenses, while allowing nonviolent felons to regain their firearm rights after release from confinement or supervision.

Peaceable Texans who committed nonviolent offenses, served their time, rebuilt their lives, and returned to society should not face a lifetime gun ban.

Unfortunately, HB 2759 did not receive a vote out of committee.

That needs to change in 2027.

“Rights restoration should not depend on who you know, how famous you are, or whether a bureaucrat behind closed doors likes your application,” said Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt.

“The government should have to follow clear rules. That is why Texas Gun Rights is fighting to restore gun rights for nonviolent felons in Texas — because peaceable citizens who have paid their debt deserve more than excuses and endless waiting.”

Texas Gun Rights plans to continue this fight during the upcoming 90th Legislative Session.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights keep fighting to defend and restore the Second Amendment — without compromise.

DPS Case Against Texas Gun Owner Takes Major Hit After Texas Supreme Court Ruling

TXGR Staff — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:57:04 +0000

The Texas Department of Public Safety’s attempt to revoke Timothy Willis’ License to Carry just ran into a major new problem.

For months, DPS has continued fighting to revoke Willis’ LTC based on a decades-old Georgia divorce order that contains no finding that Willis was violent, dangerous, or a credible threat to anyone.

Texas Gun Rights Foundation has already beaten DPS three times on this issue.

Now, a new Texas Supreme Court decision may make DPS’ position even harder to defend.

THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN

In Noyes v. State for the Protection of Voges, the Texas Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reconsider a lifetime firearm prohibition issued through a protective order.

The order in that case barred Jonathan Noyes from possessing firearms for the rest of the protected party’s life.

But after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, the Texas Supreme Court sent the case back for further review of Noyes’ Second Amendment and Texas Arms Clause arguments.

The key issue is whether the government can impose a firearm ban without the individualized dangerousness finding and temporary limitation Rahimi emphasized.

Justice James Sullivan’s concurrence was especially important.

He warned that Texas’ protective-order statute raises “grave constitutional concerns” when used to impose lifetime disarmament without a finding that the person is dangerous.

That is exactly the kind of issue at the center of Timothy Willis’ fight with DPS.

RAHIMI DOES NOT HELP DPS

DPS appears to be leaning on Rahimi to justify its position.

But Rahimi upheld temporary disarmament only where a court had found that the person posed a credible threat to another person’s physical safety.

That is not what happened here.

The Georgia order DPS is relying on against Willis does not say he committed violence.

It does not say he threatened anyone with a firearm.

It does not say he posed a credible threat to anyone’s physical safety.

And it was not a one-sided order identifying Willis as the dangerous party.

It was a mutual divorce order that applied to both parties.

In fact, the Texas trial court expressly found that no court has ever found Willis to be a credible threat.

That should end the matter.

But DPS is still trying to use that stale, reciprocal order to strip Willis of his License to Carry.

That is why TXGR Foundation attorney CJ Grisham has now filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority asking the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to consider Noyes.

In the filing, Grisham argues that Noyes reinforces what TXGR Foundation has said all along:

Rahimi does not authorize the disarmament of someone no court has found dangerous based on an old, reciprocal, finding-free order.

A CIVIL ORDER SHOULD NOT BECOME A LIFETIME GUN BAN

The implications go far beyond Timothy Willis.

If DPS gets away with this, then old civil orders with no findings of violence could be twisted into lifetime firearm disabilities.

A mutual stay-away order from a divorce case could become a weapon against gun owners decades later.

And unelected agency lawyers could use interpretation games to do what the law does not allow.

That is not how rights work.

The Second Amendment is not supposed to depend on whether a bureaucrat can dig up old paperwork and stretch it beyond recognition.

And the Texas Constitution’s Arms Clause is not supposed to be treated like a suggestion.

The Texas Supreme Court’s Noyes decision confirms that these questions deserve serious constitutional scrutiny.

And that scrutiny should be fatal to DPS’ case against Willis.

TEXAS GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION IS STILL FIGHTING

Texas Gun Rights Foundation has already defeated DPS three times on behalf of Timothy Willis.

But DPS refuses to stop.

Rather than accept the law as written, the agency is dragging Willis deeper into court, forcing him to defend rights he should never have had to fight to keep.

As TXGR Foundation attorney CJ Grisham explained:

“DPS is trying to turn an old reciprocal divorce order with no dangerousness finding into a firearm disability. Noyes makes clear that Rahimi does not give the government that kind of power. The Constitution requires more than stale paperwork and bureaucratic assumptions before the government can strip someone of his gun rights.”

Texas Gun Rights Foundation is drawing the line.

Because if DPS can do this to Timothy Willis, it can do it to other gun owners too.

But courtroom fights are expensive.

And unlike government agencies with taxpayer-funded lawyers, Texas Gun Rights Foundation depends on grassroots patriots who understand what is at stake.

Chip in $25, $50, or even $100 today to help Texas Gun Rights Foundation defend gun owners, fight government overreach, and stop unconstitutional firearm restrictions before they spread.

Supreme Court Takes up Fight Over AR-15 Bans

TXGR Staff — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 15:20:02 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major Second Amendment fight that could shake the gun confiscation lobby’s favorite ban scheme to its core.

At issue: whether the government can ban AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles — some of the most commonly owned firearms in America — by slapping them with the politically manufactured label of “assault weapons.”

For decades, anti-gun politicians have called these firearms “weapons of war,” claimed peaceable citizens cannot be trusted with them, and used fearmongering to justify outright bans.

But AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are commonly owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, training, competition, hunting, and defense of hearth and home.

Now the Supreme Court is finally taking up the fight.

THE CONNECTICUT CASE

One of the cases before the Court is Grant v. Higgins, a Connecticut challenge to the state’s ban on AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.

Connecticut’s law treats peaceable gun owners like criminals for wanting the same type of rifle millions of Americans lawfully own across the country.

The Second Circuit allowed the ban to stand, proving once again that too many lower courts are still treating the Second Amendment like a second-class right despite Bruen.

A related Connecticut challenge, National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, raised similar issues over Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines.

But the Supreme Court selected Grant as the Connecticut vehicle.

THE COOK COUNTY CASE

The Court will also hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban.

Cook County’s ordinance prohibits possession, acquisition, and transfer of AR-15-style rifles and other targeted firearms.

In plain English, Cook County politicians decided peaceable citizens should not be trusted with some of the most popular rifles in America.

That is the gun confiscation agenda: ban the guns, criminalize possession, and claim it is all about “public safety.”

THE STAKES GO BEYOND ONE RIFLE

This case directly deals with AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.

But the impact could reach much further.

So-called “assault weapons” bans are built on the same basic scheme: take commonly owned firearms, attach scary labels, point to cosmetic features, and pretend that makes them unprotected by the Second Amendment.

Many of these laws do not stop with rifles.

They often use the same feature-based test to target certain semi-automatic shotguns and handguns because they accept detachable magazines, hold more than a handful of rounds, or have other features anti-gun politicians dislike.

If the Supreme Court rejects that framework for commonly owned rifles, it could put enormous pressure on the entire “assault weapons” ban playbook.

Not just rifle bans.

The whole scheme.

Because if the government can ban one commonly owned semi-automatic firearm because politicians dislike its features, then no firearm is safe.

The gun-ban radicals are trying to establish the power to decide which arms the American people may keep.

That is exactly what the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

TEXAS GUN RIGHTS WILL FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF

Texas Gun Rights will not sit on the sidelines while the Supreme Court weighs one of the most important Second Amendment cases in a generation.

The same radicals pushing bans in anti-gun states want to bring that agenda to Texas the first chance they get.

“This case is bigger than one rifle, one state, or one ordinance,” said Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt.

“The question is whether politicians can ban common firearms by inventing scary labels and pretending the Second Amendment does not apply. If the Court gets this right, it could cripple the gun-ban playbook anti-gun states have used for decades.”

Texas Gun Rights will file an amicus brief in this fight, making it clear the Second Amendment does not protect only the arms anti-gun politicians are willing to tolerate.

It protects every arm.

If the Court rules correctly, it could put every anti-gun state on notice:

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights file its amicus brief and keep fighting to defend and restore the Second Amendment — without compromise.